its flattering to be on the same list as some of the traditional powerhouses in football

http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?pr_key=24870


ok, thats all. im not expecting much from this thread

8/11/2006 9:36:08 AM

signed with nebraska.

8/11/2006 9:42:10 AM

Get a good look at him b/c he may be in Raleigh soon.

Quote :

"signed with nebraska"

True but there is more to that story...he may not be with them anymore.

Beck to NC State on ESPN Radio so some say.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 9:48 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 9:42:58 AM

this guy is a year out of high school. whats going on? that thing says he was at nebraskas spring game in 05. is he thnking of transferring or how is he not with nebraska anymore?

8/11/2006 10:11:08 AM

IF everything is cleared and the story is true...he will have to sit this year and will be a RS-SO next year...just like any other transfer he will sit 1 season IF he transfrers.

8/11/2006 10:21:19 AM

i don't know if this has been brought up already, but this is from harrisonbeck.net (which i don't know the authenticity of, but is labeled as his official website)

Quote :

" I would like to thank all the Husker Fans who have supported me these last 2 years. I will always remember all the positive, everyday people I talked to and encountered during my time in Nebraska. After much thought, and not taken lightly, I am leaving my friends and home here. Thanks again to all the everyday fans I met and talked to, but it's time to move on. Harrison Beck"

taking a second look at this, i really have no idea how old it is or what it's in reference to, but either way something to look at.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2006 12:34:38 PM

ole miss isn't a powerhouse, not even traditionally.

8/11/2006 1:12:08 PM

right, but some of the others are

8/16/2006 9:39:48 PM

So did we get this guy?

8/16/2006 10:06:22 PM

he's actually been practicing with us since Sat. from what i heard. that was quick.

8/16/2006 10:08:08 PM

yeah we got him, us being on his list is old though, he transferred from nebraska relatively unannounced.

but from the looks of things justin burke is really doing well in practice. could be an intense fight for the starting job next year.

8/16/2006 10:11:45 PM

no it won't

we'll start Stone, and there will be no reason to pull him because we'll run the ball a lot (and run it effectively because Stone knows how to open up the offense), and have a winning record beause of it

8/16/2006 10:16:35 PM

by next year i meant '08. i don't think amato will have a problem pulling a senior in favor of a sophomore, seeing as he did it just last year.

8/16/2006 11:04:17 PM

ok.

and yeah, if Stone starts to suck balls (unlike his 5-1 record thus far), it will be strategy du jour again

8/16/2006 11:18:05 PM

Stone sucks balls WITH his 5-1 record.

8/16/2006 11:40:26 PM

LOL some people took me serious when I asked if we got this guy.

Sarcasm on the internet blows.

Don't even throw out Stone is 5-1. He WILL have to earn the job with Burke and Beck in line fighting.

8/16/2006 11:57:12 PM

Quote :

"He WILL have to earn the job with Burke and Beck in line fighting. "

damn right he will and Marcus has yet to impress me
i think its a toss up until we see Marcus in real game situations, year 2

8/17/2006 10:31:19 AM

Stone isn't the reason we have a 5-1 record with him

8/17/2006 11:28:10 AM

I concur.
Message is authentic.

8/18/2006 1:13:08 AM

no, Stone wasn't the direct reason. the defense and running the ball were the reason.

but Stone was/is the reason the defense and our running game was/will be allowed to do their thing. we needed someone who didn't go 3 and out in 30 seconds, and threw for more than 5 yards at a time (even if they were picks).

Stone did that. as long as he continues to be a non-liability, he will not get yanked like JDavis did.

8/18/2006 11:29:17 AM

Quote :

"Stone did that. as long as he continues to be a non-liability"

if Stone has more TD passes than INT's, i think we'll be OK. This season will be all about clock management....chew up as much time on O as possible, whether we score or not.

8/18/2006 11:32:41 AM

that's what i've been sayign from the start. i never proclaimed Stone to be the next coming. from what i see, i just know he's got a pair, and is overall a non-liability on offense.

this year thre will definitely more pressure on the offense to produce, since we may not be able to rely as heavily on the D. that's where the running game comes in.

and even with that, the D won't be as weak as I've heard people say. you can't teach size (Mario & Manny), but the guys we have will step up.

8/18/2006 11:39:32 AM

our problem area is going to be stopping the run. We should be decent against the pass.

8/18/2006 11:42:03 AM

^Our secondary should be solid, but we're still going to feel the loss of Hudson on the corner...

8/18/2006 11:43:06 AM

i'm interested to see how our LB core does.

8/18/2006 11:45:47 AM

if there's one thing Chuck knows how to coach, its LB's

i spoke with Dantonio Burnette recently, he thinks he may be coaching the LBs as part of his graduate assistantship

8/18/2006 11:47:24 AM

We're in big trouble if Stone's TD:INT ratio is 1:1, big trouble

8/18/2006 11:57:04 AM

Quote :

"no, Stone wasn't the direct reason. the defense and running the ball were the reason. but Stone was/is the reason the defense and our running game was/will be allowed to do their thing. we needed someone who didn't go 3 and out in 30 seconds, and threw for more than 5 yards at a time (even if they were picks). Stone did that. as long as he continues to be a non-liability, he will not get yanked like JDavis did."

No, it was not Stone being a more complete QB... it was the offense going from balanced attack to running the ball 70% of the time. Stone never completed more than 1 pass in the first half of all 6 games he started. We didn't go 3 and out in 30 seconds because we didn't let him throw the damn ball.

8/18/2006 11:59:34 AM

the two are symbiotic.

we were able run the ball because Stone had the juevos (despite picks) to throw it downfield, and open up the running game. almost every run we had before Stone was stuffed by the opposing D. i distincly remember this happening at Wake last year--we were impotent most of the game, then Chuck pulls Stone, Stone hurls it in a bunch of foolish directions for the first few downs, and all of a sudden we have a bunch of running yards. and as soon as the running game took off, we complete a pass in the endzone.

i was irate when Stone got pulled for throwing an Int. as soon as he got pulled, the running game went to shit. i wanted to punch one of those Wake frags in the pastel shirts to relieve my frustrations.

8/18/2006 12:06:50 PM

^ Same.

People that agree that Davis should have been sent back in should be shot. Sure Stone had just thrown a pick, but he also helped us get back into the game...and not just with his arm.

Having Stone in there to threaten defenses definitely opens up our running attack.

8/18/2006 12:10:15 PM

Quote :

"then Chuck pulls Stone"

meant to say, Chuck puts in stone

8/18/2006 12:12:17 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/470090.html

8/18/2006 12:31:41 PM

http://www.gopack.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=41954&SPID=3730&DB_OEM_ID=9200&ATCLID=542877&Q_SEASON=2006

8/18/2006 12:32:58 PM

Quote :

"the two are symbiotic. we were able run the ball because Stone had the juevos (despite picks) to throw it downfield, and open up the running game. almost every run we had before Stone was stuffed by the opposing D. i distincly remember this happening at Wake last year--we were impotent most of the game, then Chuck pulls Stone, Stone hurls it in a bunch of foolish directions for the first few downs, and all of a sudden we have a bunch of running yards. and as soon as the running game took off, we complete a pass in the endzone. i was irate when Stone got pulled for throwing an Int. as soon as he got pulled, the running game went to shit. i wanted to punch one of those Wake frags in the pastel shirts to relieve my frustrations."

It wasn't Stone's presence that enabled the running game and subsequent offense. A defense itsn't afraid of a QB who doesn't complete passes. The numbers for Stone and Davis are nearly identical, they performed the same. The difference was that Amato and Trestman FINALLY went with the running game. In the first 6 games of the season (when Davis started) we averaged 35.5 pass attempts and 30.3 rush attempts per game (BALANCED). In games 7 through 12 (when Stone started) there was a dramatic shift and pass attempts fell to 20.3 per game and rush attempts increased to 43 per game. We went from running the ball just 46% of the time to running the ball 68% of the time. When you have great running backs and an injured and inexperienced offensive line (making pass blocking spotty) then a running game is a MUST. You also need to keep in mind that for those first 6 games we averaged 8.7 penalties (72 yards) per game and the last 6 games we averaged just 6.5 penalties (52.2 yards) per game.

People who think the QB change was the adjustment that changed our season are dillusional or naive.

8/18/2006 2:04:13 PM

we had a stable studs at the running back position

you actually think Amato and Trestman are that dumb, that it took them half the season to realise that the running game should be used? maybe you're right, maybe they are that dumb

but to think the the QB change had nothing to do with it, and to not understand the relationship between a QB's fortitude, and the dynamics of the running game, is short sighted and sophomoric

8/18/2006 3:46:07 PM

Quote :

"we had a stable studs at the running back position you actually think Amato and Trestman are that dumb, that it took them half the season to realise that the running game should be used? maybe you're right, maybe they are that dumb "

Pride.

Quote :

"but to think the the QB change had nothing to do with it, and to not understand the relationship between a QB's fortitude, and the dynamics of the running game, is short sighted and sophomoric"

I never said the QB change had nothing to do with it. I said if you think it is the adjustment that changed our season then you don't know what you are talking about. Hell, did you even know that Jay Davis actually had the better QB rating (121 to Stone's 113) at the end of the season? Wait... did you just use "fortitude" as a justification for Stone making the team better? You have got to be out of your mind. The kid was oblivious to his surroundings on the majority of plays. There is a reason he wasn't completing more than 1 pass in the first half of games. There is a reason he had more double-digit rushing attempt games than he had double digit pass completion games. Stone's compsure and fortitude are the very things people say he lacks that keep him from being a decent QB. There is a reason why people put QB W-L in the "Most Overrated Statistic" thread.

8/18/2006 4:00:20 PM

whatever, Stone's record is still 5-1

btw, we're playing bball on Davis dr. monday after work - probably around 6:30

8/19/2006 9:14:09 PM

you can't give qb's w-l records like you would pitchers.

second scrimmage. 1st offense vs. 2nd defense

Quote :

"Through the air, quarterback Marcus Stone connected on 8-of-18 passes for 121 yards and two interceptions, although one of the picks came after the ball that went in and out of the hands of his intended receiver."

http://www.gopack.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=45349&SPID=3730&DB_OEM_ID=9200&ATCLID=559552
"boo, shitty quarterbacks!"
"hooray, beer!"


[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2006 10:18:10 PM

obviously you guys are smarter than me

but the review of NC State today on FSN + atleast one guy on ESPN said basically the same thing that i did: "because Stone had the juevos to throw it downfield, the run game opened up."

to highlight the point, FSN went on to mention Stone had a high yards/completion stat.

so despite the gleaming genius that traffics this ol' TWW, i'll take a couple of analyst opinions as an affirmation that i was right in the first place.



[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 11:55 PM. Reason : yards/completion]

8/20/2006 11:55:16 PM

^

Or maybe it was because Andre Brown became the starting RB.

Think about it.

If you don't think Jay Davis would have had as much success if AB was running the ball as consistently then you are retarded.

8/21/2006 12:11:11 AM

you could take the word of people who have watched every play of every game.

or you could take the word of sports analysts who cover 30 different teams and most likely multiple sports, who may catch 2 games and then read some of the stats.

Who BTW are sucky enough that they have to work for FSN.

8/21/2006 12:17:52 AM

Quote :

"you could take the word of people who have watched every play of every game"

that would be me,

Quote :

"If you don't think Jay Davis would have had as much success if AB was running the ball as consistently then you are retarded"

you guys and your name calling

8/21/2006 9:57:00 AM

Quote :

"If you don't think Jay Davis would have had as much success if AB was running the ball as consistently then you are retarded."

Someone finally gets it. Jay wasnt THAT bad. Chuck was.

RUN THE DAMN BALL.

8/21/2006 8:14:24 PM

NC STATE RULES!!!














































the shitter

8/21/2006 8:24:59 PM

i love how you fuckers think anybody who says anything positive about Stone's contributions and his clearly evident role in the 5-1 record, is a huge fan of is

my original point still stands. he did, and will do enough to not get yanked from the starting QB position.

8/21/2006 11:32:07 PM